Atomic spectra and atomic structure by Gerhard Herzberg

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Gerhard Herzberg's assertion that electrons revolve around a common center of mass, rather than solely around the nucleus, remains valid as of 2005. While classical mechanics suggests that the electron's motion can be viewed as revolving around this center, quantum mechanics complicates this view, indicating that electrons do not have definite trajectories. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding quantum mechanics principles, such as the wavefunction and probability distributions, which challenge classical intuitions about atomic structure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of wavefunctions and probability distributions
  • Knowledge of atomic structure and electron behavior
  • Familiarity with the Schrödinger equation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Schrödinger equation on atomic behavior
  • Explore the concept of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of the center of mass in multi-particle systems
  • Learn about the uncertainty principle and its effects on particle position and momentum
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics, atomic theory, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of atomic structure.

Galaxy33
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi! to everyone on the forum. I am new and did not really know where i should of posted this thread its not homework its just a question i have.


A friend of mine asked me a question about a book he read about (atomic spectra and atomic structure by Gerhard Herzberg). Gerhard Herzberg said that, in reality the electron revolves, not about the nucleus itself, but about a commen center of gravity; also the nucleus revolves about that center.

The question is, in 2005 is this view by Gerhard Herzberg still true? I did not know the answer so i posted it here...


Galaxy...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Galaxy33 said:
Hi! to everyone on the forum. I am new and did not really know where i should of posted this thread its not homework its just a question i have.
A friend of mine asked me a question about a book he read about (atomic spectra and atomic structure by Gerhard Herzberg). Gerhard Herzberg said that, in reality the electron revolves, not about the nucleus itself, but about a commen center of gravity; also the nucleus revolves about that center.
The question is, in 2005 is this view by Gerhard Herzberg still true? I did not know the answer so i posted it here...
Galaxy...

Great question. Some physicists, during the advent of quantum mechanics, spent some time double checking but Herzberg is still correct.

Though the atomic nucleus greatly outweighs the electrons, the electrons still do some pulling--enough anyway to yank the whole atom (electrons and all) out of whack, even if just the smallest bit.
 
If you view the system classically, then yes the electron does revolve around the CM.

If you take the Qunatum view, the correct representation, then the question is ill-formed and can not be answered.
 
Conehead said:
Though the atomic nucleus greatly outweighs the electrons, the electrons still do some pulling--enough anyway to yank the whole atom (electrons and all) out of whack, even if just the smallest bit.

And in what kind of observation/experiment/phenomenon does this "smallest bit" effect manifests itself?

Zz.
 
nbo10 said:
If you view the system classically, then yes the electron does revolve around the CM.
If you take the Qunatum view, the correct representation, then the question is ill-formed and can not be answered.

I'm assuming you're talking about HUP. Fine, this is a theoretical question and I'm going to keep assuming (unless asked otherwise) that Galaxy doesn't require proof of speed and position of the particle at the same time.

And, I might add, just because we can't nail down a mathematical snapshot of said particle doesn't mean that we don't know what it's doing. Feynman spends some time on this topic.
 
It has nothing to do with the Uncertainty principle. The electron, described by it's wavefunction, has a probability distribution that doesn't "revolve" around anything.
 
Conehead said:
I'm assuming you're talking about HUP. Fine, this is a theoretical question and I'm going to keep assuming (unless asked otherwise) that Galaxy doesn't require proof of speed and position of the particle at the same time.
And, I might add, just because we can't nail down a mathematical snapshot of said particle doesn't mean that we don't know what it's doing. Feynman spends some time on this topic.

What "mathematical snapshot" did you have in mind? The mathematical description of an atom has no such trajectory. One only needs to look at the solution fo the hydrogen atom to know this. And these were not derived out of the HUP either.

Zz.
 
nbo10 said:
It has nothing to do with the Uncertainty principle. The electron, described by it's wavefunction, has a probability distribution that doesn't "revolve" around anything.

Where is the electron distributed? Does it not have a position?

Based on the responses I'm way off on this, somehow. If that's the case give the proper answer. I'd hate argue bad info any longer than I have to.
 
Last edited:
Conehead said:
Where is the electron distributed? Does it not have a position?
Based on the responses I'm way off on this, somehow. If that's the case give the proper answer. I'd hate argue bad info any longer than I have to.

This goes to the foundation of QM and why the Schrödinger Cat thought experiment came into being!

It does NOT have a definite position till it is measured. The s-orbital is a spherical distribution of ONE electron. You get this by solving the orbital part of the Schrödinger equation. The electron IS distributed all over the place simultaneously. This is what makes QM highly non-intuitive for anyone who skip the mathematical formalism.

How do you know such a description is valid? Besides the fact that QM gave unbelievably accurate energy spectrum of many atoms and molecules (something classical mechanics could not), we also have evidence from how bonding forms, especially in the formation of bonding and antibonding states. Such phenomenon has no intuitive counterpart in classical mechanics.

Zz.
 
  • #10
ZapperZ said:
The electron IS distributed all over the place simultaneously.

So, I'm assuming that a thrown photon's trajectory is also a matter of probability?
 
  • #11
To say something about the OP's question : Yes, you can decompose the Schrödinger Equation for the H-atom into two parts - one dealing with the center of mass motion and the other dealing with the relative motion - using the standard change of variables :

\mu = \frac {m_1m_2} {m_1+m_2}~;~~M = m_1 + m_2~;~~r = |r_1 - r_2|~;~~R = \frac{m_1 r_1 + m_2 r_2}{m_1+m_2}

This makes - in the case of the H-atom - a very tiny change to the Hamiltonia.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Conehead said:
So, I'm assuming that a thrown photon's trajectory is also a matter of probability?

I wouldn't know, since I have no idea what a "thrown photon" is.

Zz.
 
  • #13
ZapperZ said:
I wouldn't know, since I have no idea what a "thrown photon" is.
Zz.

When an electron drops to a lower energy level it releases a photon

Did I do something to irritate you?
 
  • #14
Conehead said:
When an electron drops to a lower energy level it releases a photon
Did I do something to irritate you?

No. I'm responding to what you have said. Is it wrong for me to get clarification of what you are saying or claiming? I have never seen the phrase "thrown photon" in all my years in this field. I have also haven't seen any experimental evidence to back your claim earlier of "... electrons still do some pulling--enough anyway to yank the whole atom (electrons and all) out of whack, even if just the smallest bit.. "

So a photon emitted by an atomic transition is what you called "thrown photon"? I'm not sure why this would be relevant for this thread. Once photons are emitted one can very much invoke classical optics.

Zz.
 
  • #15
Don't take thing's personally.

Life is in the details. When you ask a vague question you're going to get a vague answer. When you ask a general, non-specific, or ill-worded question, you'll find the answer you get isn't going to be helpful.

Photons are very different from electrons.
 
  • #16
Oh, I wasn't taking anything personally. Just making sure someone else wasn't. I have very colloquial conversations with working physicists everyday with far better results than just now. But I have a way of not making sense sometimes.

Thanks for the information. Ciao.
 
  • #17
Thanks to everyone who answered my question, but can i assume that the answer was yes, as Conehead stated (some physicists during the advent of quantum mecanics, spent some time double checking but Herzberg is still correct) ?




Titana....
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Total spin from atomic spectroscopy term symbols, e.g. neon's excited states
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
597
Undergrad Doubts regarding atomic spectra of mono-electron species
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Is it the nucleus or a proton at the center?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad Source of the damping force in Lorentz model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about the Bohr model of atom and and electron in an orbital
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Atomic "Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure" by Gerhard Herzberg
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Characteristic X Rays: Understanding Atom Reversion
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Emission spectra and energy levels in atoms
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad What causes magnetism at the atomic level?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Predicting new crystal structures
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K